Nikon USA accidentally posted press photos of D3x today, then removed them quickly.
Nikon USA accidentally posted press photos of D3x today, then removed them quickly.
several times already these brands like Nikon, Canon "accidentally" leak pictures through their web site for a few hours. It has become a stale trick but of course to us who are waiting for the next camera, it's exciting. I'm all wide-eyed waiting to see what a D3X is like.
Tahnks for the tip-off.
Did they post specs 'accidentally' as well?
Well Nikon is holding press conferences on Monday morning all over Europe and it's a holiday over in the US starting today, so my guess is it was an honest mistake by an overstressed web developer trying to get everything in place before turkey day.
As far as I know, no specs were seen. Just a D3 with an "x".
Specs leaked in Nikon Pro magazine: 24MP, ISO 100-1600, 5/7 fps FX/DX, new optical lowpass (AA) filter, otherwise seems quite similar to D3.
Unknown is pricing, and actual image quality.
I hope 'new' (AA filter) means THIN ;>
Two key aspects that I would watch out for are:
1. Price (would it compare with Sony's?).
2. Improved liveview. As implemented (D300, d3) the liveview feature sucks.
Just opened my issue of Nikon Pro magazine that arrived in the post this morning and it contains the full story on the D3x.
Described as an "Ultra-high definition 24.5 megapixel flagship takes DSLR into medium-format terrain"
Three new lenses are also coming according to Kamera & Bild: AF-S 35mm f/1.8, AF-S 135mm f/1.8, and AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR.
Let's forget about Nikon Primes. The good news is that Zeiss optics (including the wonderful 35 2.0) are just remarkable. Would I like a 35 1.4? You bet and I bet it will happen in the very near future.
Love my Nikons and love the Zeiss glass. Just wish that Nikon would get the needed AF primes for those of us who like to shoot this way.
Happy Thanksgiving Michigan man! LOL
The new lenses sound interesting, particularly if they can perform better than the current 35/2 and 28/1.4. I agree that 1.8 sounds less inviting and you'd almost expect something closer to 1.2 or 1.0 with today's technology, particularly given the applications for primes vs zooms nowadays.
I'm eager to hear how the D3x performs in real use. I can easily see it joining my outfit later next year if it can compare favorably with the D3 - i.e. not just on resolution.
I have to agree with you Graham. I am crafting an analysis of the Nikon Pro article (acquired second hand as I don't own enough Nikon Pro kit to qualify as a member of NPS) and one of my points is the encroachment of 35mm sensors into the MFD space. Nikon is the 4th 35mm camera maker to cross over into 20+ Mpx space and is now starting to blur the distinction between 35mm and low end MFD. Depending on the price of the D3x, I may sell off my beloved M8 and my D300 to get this camera. Especially for landscape work.
I would expect the D3X to be the standard bearer for high image quality in a DSLR.
Last edited by glenerrolrd; 28th November 2008 at 23:29.
I agree that it not being 1.4 is a bit of a drag, but 1.8 is only half a stop away, and I would certainly rather have a 1.8 than none at all. At 1.8, maybe it will even be small!
The 35/1.8 could be a better lens than the 35/1.4 AiS. The field curvature in 35/1.4 could be vastly improved and any side by side comparison would make the DOF renditions from the f/1.4 lens could make them look less shallow.
Many Nikon fans swear by the 35/1.4 but soon could realize that there are better things possible. Not a bad thing at all.
I agree, after being used to shooting the 35/1.4 ASPH, 35/2 M-Hexanon and 35/1.4 Summilux R, I would rather it be a truly excellent 1.8 than an acceptable 1.4.
Canon makes a pretty good 35/1.4 ... a very usable lens for low light work ... Nikon needs to wake up and make some really fast new available light lenses with AFS, nano coating and all that.
Wish I never sold my 28/1.4. Now I can't afford to buy one back.
The 50/1.4 AFS itself is taking its own sweet time and they are busy trying to standardize the plastic manufacturing in PRC.
I think Sony should get their act together to try and make a viable system. That would give Nikon the jolt they need.
Leica possibly? But then, the S2 isn't a 35mm camera (or won't be, to be precise!)4 makers? Canon, then Sony and now Nikon .... who's the 4th?
Frankly, I don't see them as mutually exclusive at this point. I do tend to buy cameras based on optics first. The camera is just a media box, and the price of entry is decent ergonomic speed and handling ... but optics rule as the priority. IMO, Zeiss is Sony's trump card. If Zeiss extends their Sony mount offerings to include a new formula AF version of the 28/2, 35/1.4 and/or legendary Zeiss 21, or the 100/2 and 300/4 ... look out Canon and Nikon. And dream-of-dreams a re-issue of the Zeiss 50/1.2 in AF. Nothing like a dedicated lens maker making new lenses for a new system.
Time will tell
While I own a D3 myself and like this camera, I am NOT impressed from what the D3X will offer in terms of speed and High ISO possibilities. Canon' 5DM2 can go up to 6400 as standard speed (D3X only up to ISO1600 standard speed) and of course one can push further. And this camera offers very low noise on their 21MP sensor - which in my opinion is no real difference to 24MP.
So why it took so long for Nikon I do not understand. And I am expecting a higher res version of the 1DSM3 early next year.
For me today Canon is still the leader and they have one BIG advantage: they design and develop and produce not only camera, glass, but also the electronics AND the sensor themselves. This gives them much more possibilities than Nikon, they still have to buy the sensor on the market
Leica with the S2 is the 4th. The S2 sensor is larger than 35mm but considerably smaller than MFD.
The main distinctions between MFD and 35mm was image size (MFD starts around 20+ megapixels these days and 35mm is now topping out at 24.5 Mpx), dynamic range (most MFD backs are rated at 12 stops of DR and DXOMark tests show that the current top end systems from Canon, Nikon and Sony all match this), and sharpness due to thin or no AA filters (the D3x is reported to sport an all new OLPF - Optical Low Pass Filter). One bit that remains unclear is the bit depth of the new D3x sensor. Typical MFD sensors operate at 16 bits/channel and the Nikon Pro article only mentions the Expeed processor operates at 16-bits. Whether this is referring to pixel depth or computer instruction word size is unknown at this time.
What OLPF really means is unclear, as all LPF's have been optical so far. Maybe this one is very thin and ha only minor impact as the rest is calculated fro the processor?
Anyway, Canon is reported to do LPF in it's future top models without any filter, all in DIGIC V, which then paired with 16bit an say 24-28MP will be the real optimal solution!
I do not like Canon files because they are overly filtered & waxey to my eye. I vividly recall my heart sinking when I opened the first set of wedding images shot with the 1DMKII The last two Canons I owned (1DMKIII & 1DsMKII) were the last straw, and I jumped ship when Nikon finally went FF.
I also seriously doubt that a Canon 5DMKII will be in the same class as the D3X any more than the 5D is in the same class as the D3. Personally I shot with the 5D for years and hated every minute of it. It's one of the few cameras I've used that I never took to ... no matter how much I wanted it to be so. Strictly a personal opinion.
However, IF I were still shooting Canon, I think I'd still pop for the 5DMKII because it's small ... and I'd use it with a few select ultra fast prime lenses ... however for versatile use, Canon zooms are in desperate need of a total overhaul as much as Nikon needs to address a few basic fast primes. The Canon 24-70/2.8 main-stay lens leaves a lot to be desired IMHO. And anything below 50mm prime or zoom range has some of the worst distortion I've ever experienced ... something I personally despise.
But a Canon 5DMKII with a 50/1.2L would be a pretty nice set up by itself. Wish the 50/1.2L had IS ... or the 5DMKII had internal IS. Then it'd be the perfect available light machine.
I still keep my D3 and all glass but I am very disappointed on the missing primes as I wrote. Bt I know Nikon in and out, as I am using this system since many years!
And I also find - contrary to you - the Canon files much more natural and realistic than the Nikon files (I speak always about RAW, as I only shoot RAW and do not give anything on JPEG in any camera). And I use Aperture, as I have the feeling it has the best RAW converters from all SW on the market - just my personal feeling and opinion.
So finally I decided to go with 2 brands - Nikon and Canon - which will allow me to buy exactly the combination of lenses and cameras as I prefer them for different needs and I do NOT have to restrict myself to foolish marketing ideas of one or the other - great idea - ok?
So I am pretty happy since I decided this and look forward to an exciting future with both systems. And finally this will be cheaper than always selling a complete system and jumping to another - at least for my needs. But honestly I do expect more innovation from C than from N over the next years, simply because C owns the complete technology flow from start till end. And so they can tweak the best way what i s possible and what is requested by the market.
BTW - I do like both 24-70 zooms, the Nikon and the Canon, for me both are great lenses and absolutely top performers. And I am also sure that the generation of cameras you used from C was still way behind a 1DSM3 and 5DM2.
In the end, it's the performance (and cost) of the system that matters. I'm sitting here with a bunch of Nikon glass purchased from -95 to -05, some of which I suspect needs to be upgraded to match a 25 Mpx sensor (my 80-200/2.8D comes to mind). I can hardly justify the investment in a $7K camera plus some $3-6K in lenses just to get to 25 Mpx. OTOH if an upgrade to the D700 appeared come spring, then that might be interesting.
For now, the price on D700 in Europe is quite attractive, GBP 1331 at Robert White which should be around USD 2050.
I never said shipping, I said announced. Another in that category is the RED DSMC with Scarlet 35FF Module - it specs the same as the Nikon D3x. 24Mpx, 16-bit A/D, and 13+ stops of DR. The RED DSCM clobbers everyone on framerates: 30fps for the Scarlet 35FF module. And they have also announced an Epic 645 module at 65Mpx, 16-bit A/D, and 50fps!
Here are the official images of the D3x from the Nikon Global website. The site is very sluggish as I am sure it is getting a lot of traffic.
Jeff Turner's Emerging Light Photography
$8,000 seems to be the price. That would buy me a Walkman with in-body IS, a Zeiss 24-70, the 135/1.8 and the Sony 70-300 G.
Oh well... no hurry. I'll take a couple of shots with the S5 and think it over
The press release cleared up one question I had: 14-bit/channel max like on the D3/D300/D700. The Expeed processor operates in a 16-bit pipeline.
With the D3x, Nikon targets the pro market where image quality and resolution is most important - studio, fashion, product. Competitors - as a system - are Canon with 1Ds, and several MFD manufacturers. If Nikon can deliver image quality comparable to MFD systems then the D3x is certainly priced right.
Cost-conscious photographers looking to move up in resolution is a different market, this is where A900 and now 5dII reside, and it's of course much more of a volume market than that for the D3x. It would only make sense for Nikon to eventually put the D3x sensor in a lower-spec body, just as with the D3 and D700. Time gap there was 12 months, so perhaps next fall?
Robert White's listed prices don't include VAT (currently 15% until the end of 09).For now, the price on D700 in Europe is quite attractive, GBP 1331 at Robert White which should be around USD 2050.
Prices quoted on other reputable sites are $8000 USA, if so, this is a no go for me, will now wait for the D700x version and keep using my D300. This is way high but I guess they wanted to shore up the D3 prices...which I think is a loosing proposition, but anyway......both Canon's high rez offereing are cheaper at this point, and Sony's is still king for the rez/cost ratio...YMMV
Guess I may look instead into a larger printer...have a 3800 and want at least a 24" model...
Assuming Robert White's prices, for the price of the D3x you can buy:
Zeiss 24-70 f2.8
Zeiss 16-35 f2.8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Of course, the nikon has it's advantages, but it also has disadvantages.
As for the D700 sized body . . . . it isn't likely to be very cheap either.
Just this guy you know
A large portion of the posters here are either based in the US (in which case no EU VAT is paid on orders from EU) or professional (in which case for EU businesses no VAT is paid), so the ex VAT price is more relevant for comparing prices on professional equipment worldwide.
A business in the UK has to be earning above ~£45,000 profit to be VAT registered, I'm certainly not and I doubt many pro's are apart from the big commercial outfits.
I'm with Don on this one. The inevitable D800 will likely house the D3x sensor in a smaller frame which is fine for me. I can wait. Unless I get an amazing offer from somewhere...
I'm buying a Sony A900, and trading in Nikkor lenses likely to be upgraded by Nikon in any event (e.g. the 80-400VR), so now might be a good time to capitalise on their residual value. If a D700x materializes I'll certainly be interested, but my guess is Sony will not rest on their laurels. And I like Zeiss lenses - used to use them when Contax were around.
Had the D3x been priced more reasonably, I might have been tempted. An A900 will give me portable stock-library-without-interpolation files. Lugging my Mamiya ZD around was workable but less versatile.
Jono, while at PhotoPlus Sony showed me an unreleased Zeiss 135mm f/1.8!